4 ms·

Why not both?

pfdietz 4y ago
Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well. When renewables are built out they push the price of electricity down too often for nuclear to earn the good average price it needs. When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then. These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places (maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables), so there's not much place left for nuclear. If your energy system has variable demand it will need storage even with nuclear, which tilts the game toward renewables even further (their need for storage is partially covered by the storage one needs anyway to level the load; said storage can level supply and demand at the same time, to some extent.) Nuclear also has the problem that it's not going to survive very well as a niche technology, as that would likely not cause enough construction of new power plants to keep the industry from seeing negative learning effects.
- adev_ 4y ago
  > When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then. That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1] > These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places And that's gross bullshit. - Never storage of electricity has been deployed successfully at scale needed for a mid size country. Pretend that it is, today, a solution is highly hypocritical or plain gross bullshit. - Even on the most optimistic (and untested) scenario, the cost plan of RE+Storage is (at best) on part with Nuclear energy (Pumped-storage) and or way more expensive (battery, power2gas). [2] > maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables That is even more bullshit. Finland has pretty large hydro reserves. Renewable does not stop to solar. [3] [1]: https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document [2]: https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-cost/ https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-... [3]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=t...
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    > That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1] You take the most expensive energy source and run it at a lower capacity factor leading to even higher costs per delivered kWh. That is the issue. Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewables crowd it out of the market half the time and assume marginal costs of running the plant at ~€20/MWh. [2] €(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh. That would be expensive even by Putin energy crisis standards, that is the issue with mixing nuclear and renewables. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
    - adev_ 4y ago
      > Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewable crowd it out Very bad projection because: - Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto 3 and EPR Flamanville are all prototype. Their CAPEX cost are not representative of industrialized Nuclear. As example, the production cost as expressed by the French ARENH is around 42-1€/MWh [1] - Electricity price skyrocket when weather conditions make production of renewable impossible. This is where this kind of plant make a profit. [2] Your projection just fit a worst case scenario. - At the current electricity price due to the Russian conflict, Some EPRs including the French ones are predicted to be cost effective in only few years. [1]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-proposes-raise-edf-power-sales-under-arenh-8-2023.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-power-prices-hit-fresh-record-as-gas-continues-to-surge https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-po...
    - doikor 4y ago
      > €(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh. No idea about Hinkley Point but TVOs 2 earlier reactors have costs in the 15 to 20€/MWh range with average market prices around 30 to 40€/MWh they are making healthy profits with the reactors (and have for decades now). Once OL3 is running their target combined operational costs of all the reactors are around 30€/MWh. It will be tight but they should be able to make it profitable especially as they don't have to sell all the production at day ahead spot prices but higher fixed rate contracts far into the future. Obviously nuclear also produces at the moments when wind does not and the price spikes. (https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7RllfhpQP/TVO_Credit_Investor_Presentation_June_2021.pdf https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7Rllf... scroll down to page 7) edit: And TVO does not actually sell anything on the open markets but instead at production costs to its owners based on the % of investment into each reactor. Those can then either sell it or use it themselves.
- doikor 4y ago
  > Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well. Funnily enough TVO (the owner and operator of Olkiluoto the site where his new reactor is at) also owns a bunch of hydro (and a little bit of wind). Though the hydro mostly exists as their own private backup generator. It has direct lines to the nuclear site so in the case they need to shutdown all the reactor and can't receive electricity from the grid to run the cooling systems they can get the electricity from that (they obviously also have onsite diesel generators too)
rcxdude 4y ago
Because they don't really complement each other: nuclear + renewable grid has basically the same holes as a pure nuclear or a pure renewable grid, nuclear doesn't like dealing with peaks in demand (you'd need to massively overbuild nuclear to supply the peaks as well), and renewables might deal with peaks in demand but the dips in supply are a problem (for which again, you'd need to massively overbuild). For both you want to pair them with either storage or flexible generation (and the most economical and scalable flexible generation is gas, the only renewable options are hydropower and geothermal, both of which are limited in capacity by geography). So you're going to be over-building capacity and building lots of storage whatever mix of wind/solar/nuclear you build, so why not build the cheapest (and faster) mix which tends to exclude nuclear? (now, you might in principle need less storage and overbuilding with nuclear than with renewables, but the difference has to somehow overcome the 3x-4x price premium on nuclear).

Why not both?

Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well. When renewables are built out they push the price of electricity down too often for nuclear to earn the good average price it needs. When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then. These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places (maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables), so there's not much place left for nuclear. If your energy system has variable demand it will need storage even with nuclear, which tilts the game toward renewables even further (their need for storage is partially covered by the storage one needs anyway to level the load; said storage can level supply and demand at the same time, to some extent.) Nuclear also has the problem that it's not going to survive very well as a niche technology, as that would likely not cause enough construction of new power plants to keep the industry from seeing negative learning effects.

adev_ 4y ago
> When prices spike, dispatchable sources (or dispatchable demand) move in and snipe the peaks, so nuclear can't make up for it then. That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1] > These days, it's looking like renewables + storage could supply "synthetic baseload" more cheaply than nuclear in most places And that's gross bullshit. - Never storage of electricity has been deployed successfully at scale needed for a mid size country. Pretend that it is, today, a solution is highly hypocritical or plain gross bullshit. - Even on the most optimistic (and untested) scenario, the cost plan of RE+Storage is (at best) on part with Nuclear energy (Pumped-storage) and or way more expensive (battery, power2gas). [2] > maybe not Finland, yet; that part of the world is one of the worst for renewables That is even more bullshit. Finland has pretty large hydro reserves. Renewable does not stop to solar. [3] [1]: https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document [2]: https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-cost/ https://www.powermag.com/how-much-will-hydrogen-based-power-... [3]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FI?solar=false&remote=t...
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  > That is not true. Nuclear power has been used as a dispatchable / regulative source of power to compensate solar and wind power intermittency for decades in France.[1] You take the most expensive energy source and run it at a lower capacity factor leading to even higher costs per delivered kWh. That is the issue. Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewables crowd it out of the market half the time and assume marginal costs of running the plant at ~€20/MWh. [2] €(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh. That would be expensive even by Putin energy crisis standards, that is the issue with mixing nuclear and renewables. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - adev_ 4y ago
    > Say you run Hinkley Point C [1] at a capacity factor of 50% because renewable crowd it out Very bad projection because: - Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto 3 and EPR Flamanville are all prototype. Their CAPEX cost are not representative of industrialized Nuclear. As example, the production cost as expressed by the French ARENH is around 42-1€/MWh [1] - Electricity price skyrocket when weather conditions make production of renewable impossible. This is where this kind of plant make a profit. [2] Your projection just fit a worst case scenario. - At the current electricity price due to the Russian conflict, Some EPRs including the French ones are predicted to be cost effective in only few years. [1]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-proposes-raise-edf-power-sales-under-arenh-8-2023.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-power-prices-hit-fresh-record-as-gas-continues-to-surge https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-16/german-po...
  - doikor 4y ago
    > €(120 - 20) * 2 + 20 = €220/MWh. No idea about Hinkley Point but TVOs 2 earlier reactors have costs in the 15 to 20€/MWh range with average market prices around 30 to 40€/MWh they are making healthy profits with the reactors (and have for decades now). Once OL3 is running their target combined operational costs of all the reactors are around 30€/MWh. It will be tight but they should be able to make it profitable especially as they don't have to sell all the production at day ahead spot prices but higher fixed rate contracts far into the future. Obviously nuclear also produces at the moments when wind does not and the price spikes. (https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7RllfhpQP/TVO_Credit_Investor_Presentation_June_2021.pdf https://www.tvo.fi/material/collections/20210713150018/7Rllf... scroll down to page 7) edit: And TVO does not actually sell anything on the open markets but instead at production costs to its owners based on the % of investment into each reactor. Those can then either sell it or use it themselves.
doikor 4y ago
> Nuclear and renewables are like oil and water: they don't mix well. Funnily enough TVO (the owner and operator of Olkiluoto the site where his new reactor is at) also owns a bunch of hydro (and a little bit of wind). Though the hydro mostly exists as their own private backup generator. It has direct lines to the nuclear site so in the case they need to shutdown all the reactor and can't receive electricity from the grid to run the cooling systems they can get the electricity from that (they obviously also have onsite diesel generators too)

rcxdude 4y ago

Because they don't really complement each other: nuclear + renewable grid has basically the same holes as a pure nuclear or a pure renewable grid, nuclear doesn't like dealing with peaks in demand (you'd need to massively overbuild nuclear to supply the peaks as well), and renewables might deal with peaks in demand but the dips in supply are a problem (for which again, you'd need to massively overbuild). For both you want to pair them with either storage or flexible generation (and the most economical and scalable flexible generation is gas, the only renewable options are hydropower and geothermal, both of which are limited in capacity by geography). So you're going to be over-building capacity and building lots of storage whatever mix of wind/solar/nuclear you build, so why not build the cheapest (and faster) mix which tends to exclude nuclear? (now, you might in principle need less storage and overbuilding with nuclear than with renewables, but the difference has to somehow overcome the 3x-4x price premium on nuclear).